As promised, the Top 12 Movies I Hate But Everyone Else Seems to Love

Mikael Soderholm

Supporting Actor
Joined
Apr 5, 1999
Messages
811
Location
Stockholm, SWEDEN
Real Name
Mikael Söderholm
DSmith1984 said:
Avatar should be this generation's version of Star Wars in terms of how it redefines the way movies are made. I think in time to come people will look back and say that Avatar really was the first film that lead to the next stage of development as far as movie making goes.
SW became what it became for its generation (and those after it) not because of its technological breakthroughs (that were of interest only to other movie makers, and geeks like us), but because of its story, and to some extent, its actors. That is why Avatar will fail in doing the same.
 

DSmith1984

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 29, 2011
Messages
115
Real Name
Doug
Mikael Soderholm said:
SW became what it became for its generation (and those after it) not because of its technological breakthroughs (that were of interest only to other movie makers, and geeks like us), but because of its story, and to some extent, its actors. That is why Avatar will fail in doing the same.
I disagree. The Star Wars story is one that Lucas himself admits is old as time itself. The sizzle of Star Wars i.e. its technological breakthroughs are the reason so many people flocked to theaters to see it. If you make the exact same story and take all the tech stuff out of it, Star Wars falls on its face. I'd hardly credit the actors of Star Wars also. It's not like Mark Hamill is Marlon Brando or Harrison Ford is Al Pacino. For that matter, Harrison Ford in the movie is awful IMO. Had he not been a supporting character, he would've likely ruined anything good that the original trilogy actually offered. Before you ask, yes, I'm a little biased in this because I think the Star Wars franchise is perhaps the most overrated film franchise in history. While Eps. 3, 4 and 5 are decent movies, none of them should rank anywhere in anyones top 50 greatest movies of all time list and the fact that Eps 4 and 5 are mentioned in the same breath as films like Casablanca, LOTR trilogy, Godfather, Seven Samurai, is literally stomach churning.
Avatar's reputation is gonna grow in time once the hate for James Cameron finally stops because I firmly believe it will subside someday. It may take 20-30 years but it will happen I think. Sure Avatar's story as old as time itself just like Star Wars, but also like Star Wars, it revolutionized what can be done in a film. I think each generation has a film like this. Star Wars, then Terminator 2, then Lord Of The Rings, and most recently Avatar. Even though they're extremely well thought of now, I think in time to come Nolan's Batman trilogy will be even more highly thought of because, while not the first to do so, these films showed the apex of what the comic medium can bring to film. Unless he just forgets what he's doing, Chris Nolan is gonna become my generation's Stanley Kubrick. Before you call me crazy for saying that, quite a few people have already compared him to Kubrick so I think it's a matter of time before it becomes a generally prevalent thought.
 

Walter Kittel

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 28, 1998
Messages
7,408
If you make the exact same story and all the tech stuff out of it, Star Wars falls on its face.
I would counter that opinion with Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress.
While I agree that part of the appeal of Star Wars is the technology on display - at that moment in time; to ignore the narrative and the actors is to perform a disservice to both. Watching the original series and the prequels what really stood out for me was the chemistry of the original cast (Han, Leia, Ben, and Luke) which was woefully missing from the prequels. While the prequels have the advantage of more sophisticated production techniques they only hint at the magic of the original trilogy.
I'm not convinced that Avatar should be this generation's Star Wars. While it may have been technically innovative at least in terms of film production; that in and of itself does not a film make. The film is not terrible but it engages in some pretty bad stereotypes that undermine the credibility of the film (at least for me.)
- Walter.
 

DSmith1984

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 29, 2011
Messages
115
Real Name
Doug
Walter Kittel said:
I would counter that opinion with Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress.
While I agree that part of the appeal of Star Wars is the technology on display - at that moment in time; to ignore the narrative and the actors is to perform a disservice to both. Watching the original series and the prequels what really stood out for me was the chemistry of the original cast (Han, Leia, Ben, and Luke) which was woefully missing from the prequels. While the prequels have the advantage of more sophisticated production techniques they only hint at the magic of the original trilogy.
I'm not convinced that Avatar should be this generation's Star Wars. While it may have been technically innovative at least in terms of film production; that in and of itself does not a film make. The film is not terrible but it engages in some pretty bad stereotypes that undermine the credibility of the film (at least for me.)
- Walter.
Comparing Akira Kurosawa to George Lucas is absolute blasphemy. George Lucas' best couldn't hold the jock of Kurosawa's worst.
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
36,048
Location
The basement of the FBI building
DSmith1984 said:
Unless he just forgets what he's doing, Chris Nolan is gonna become my generation's Stanley Kubrick. Before you call me crazy for saying that, quite a few people have already compared him to Kubrick so I think it's a matter of time before it becomes a generally prevalent thought.
I know a big part of the reason for this thread is to start shit (in a fun way) but that's just crazy. Christopher Nolan is an excellent director but current guys like David Fincher and Paul Thomas Anderson are far superior to Nolan and none of them can be compared to Kubrick.
While it may churn your stomach, Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back can easily be compared to the endlessly boring and hugely overrated dorkfests that are the Lord Of The Rings movies.
 

DSmith1984

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 29, 2011
Messages
115
Real Name
Doug
TravisR said:
I know a big part of the reason for this thread is to start shit (in a fun way) but that's just crazy. Christopher Nolan is an excellent director but current guys like David Fincher and Paul Thomas Anderson are far superior to Nolan and none of them can be compared to Kubrick.
While it may churn your stomach, Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back can easily be compared to the endlessly boring and hugely overrated dorkfests that are the Lord Of The Rings movies.
That's a bit of a copout to me. What exactly makes them "dorkfests"? Couldn't the exact same thing be said for the Star Wars franchise? Personally, I think that argument against either series is utterly putrid because who are we to define what is "dorkish" and what isn't?
Fincher has 3 good films(Seven, Fight Club, and the vastly underrated Alien 3) and Paul Thomas Anderson has There Will Be Blood which I watched just a few days ago for the first time in probably 3 years. For me, TWBB has lost a lot of the charm it had when it first came out. At one time, I felt it was equal to No Country For Old Men but now, I definitely think the right choice was made in which of the 2 won Best Picture. I'm sorry, I can't take seriously the notion that a guy who made such a "classic" as Punch-Drunk Love should be mentioned as in the same level as Chris Nolan.
In mentioning Stanley Kubrick, as much as I like Kubrick's classics, I've got to admit he made some less than stellar movies too. The Killer and Killer's Kiss are absolutely dreadful but I can forgive that since they were very early efforts. I also think Full Metal Jacket is severely overhyped and overrated especially when compared with Platoon and Apocalypse Now. I also think Spartacus is extremely drawn out and way too long even though I think it's a good movie. It could've been 30-45 minutes shorter I think. I'm also not a fan of Lolita because I'm not a fan of the story itself but that's more personal taste than it is a direct criticism of the film because I've never seen it so I wouldn't feel right criticizing it in that fashion.
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
36,048
Location
The basement of the FBI building
DSmith1984 said:
That's a bit of a copout to me. What exactly makes them "dorkfests"? Couldn't the exact same thing be said for the Star Wars franchise? Personally, I think that argument against either series is utterly putrid because who are we to define what is "dorkish" and what isn't?
The apearance of little elfs going on a quest pretty easily qualifies it as dorky in my book. Anyway, the dorkiness isn't my problem with the movies- it's that I was bored to death by them. Clearly, they are beloved by millions of people but I can't understand why.
Fincher has 3 good films(Seven, Fight Club, and the vastly underrated Alien 3) and Paul Thomas Anderson has There Will Be Blood which I watched just a few days ago for the first time in probably 3 years. For me, TWBB has lost a lot of the charm it had when it first came out. At one time, I felt it was equal to No Country For Old Men but now, I definitely think the right choice was made in which of the 2 won Best Picture. I'm sorry, I can't take seriously the notion that a guy who made such a "classic" as Punch-Drunk Love should be mentioned as in the same level as Chris Nolan.
None of what I consider to be Nolan's best works (Memento, The Prestige and Inception) even come close to being as good as Boogie Nights or Fight Club or Magnolia or Zodiac or There Will Be Blood or even The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. Once again, Nolan is an extremely talented director but I don't even think he's in the same league as some of his peers let alone a guy like Stanley Kubrick.
 

Quentin

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
2,670
Location
Los Angeles
Real Name
Quentin H
DSmith1984 said:
Comparing Akira Kurosawa to George Lucas is absolute blasphemy. George Lucas' best couldn't hold the jock of Kurosawa's worst.
How can it be blasphemy when much of "Star Wars" is taken right out of "The Hidden Fortress"? C3P0 and R2D2 are straight out of the film!
Comparing Lucas' best to Kurosawa's is worthy of debate...and, I too would side with Kurosawa as infinitely more talented. But, there is nothing blasphemous or dismissive there.
As for your list...I hold Nemo near the bottom of my Pixar list too. I don't HATE it, but I have no desire to watch it ever again.
But, your list is mostly silly...not really film criticism as much as almost joke-like reasons to 'despise' a film. And, "Back to the Future" is a masterpiece.
 

Mikael Soderholm

Supporting Actor
Joined
Apr 5, 1999
Messages
811
Location
Stockholm, SWEDEN
Real Name
Mikael Söderholm
DSmith1984 said:
The sizzle of Star Wars i.e. its technological breakthroughs are the reason so many people flocked to theaters to see it. If you make the exact same story and take all the tech stuff out of it, Star Wars falls on its face.
Avatar's reputation is gonna grow in time once the hate for James Cameron finally stops because I firmly believe it will subside someday. Chris Nolan is gonna become my generation's Stanley Kubrick. Before you call me crazy for saying that, quite a few people have already compared him to Kubrick so I think it's a matter of time before it becomes a generally prevalent thought.
Well, the SW prequels had even more sizzle, but that didn't help. If you take all he tech out of it, what you have is basically The Hidden Fortress, but executed less well.
There is not that much hate for Cameron as you make it out to be, and what is, is more directed toward Titanic, IMHO (which, unlike Avatar, is a great movie). While Caremon surely will be remembered not only as a tech wizard, but a great (or at least good) director (and writer, and lighting tech, and most else on a set), it will probably not be because of Avatar, but because of those movies he made where the story was more important than the tech.
Nolan to become a Kubrick, puuh-leeze ;)
 

DSmith1984

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 29, 2011
Messages
115
Real Name
Doug
TravisR said:
The apearance of little elfs going on a quest pretty easily qualifies it as dorky in my book. Anyway, the dorkiness isn't my problem with the movies- it's that I was bored to death by them. Clearly, they are beloved by millions of people but I can't understand why.
None of what I consider to be Nolan's best works (Memento, The Prestige and Inception) even come close to being as good as Boogie Nights or Fight Club or Magnolia or Zodiac or There Will Be Blood or even The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. Once again, Nolan is an extremely talented director but I don't even think he's in the same league as some of his peers let alone a guy like Stanley Kubrick.
But again, couldn't aliens and sci-fi creatures also qualify as "dorky"? We're going in circles with this argument.
As far as Fincher/PTA vs. Nolan, this is one area that it appears neither of us are gaining any ground because nothing you've said has convinced me of your belief and apparently nothing I've said has convinced you of my belief.
Quentin said:
How can it be blasphemy when much of "Star Wars" is taken right out of "The Hidden Fortress"? C3P0 and R2D2 are straight out of the film!
Comparing Lucas' best to Kurosawa's is worthy of debate...and, I too would side with Kurosawa as infinitely more talented. But, there is nothing blasphemous or dismissive there.
As for your list...I hold Nemo near the bottom of my Pixar list too. I don't HATE it, but I have no desire to watch it ever again.
But, your list is mostly silly...not really film criticism as much as almost joke-like reasons to 'despise' a film. And, "Back to the Future" is a masterpiece.
Telling the story from their point of view is straight out of Hidden Fortress. Most of the other plot points can be derived from one of hundreds of other stories. The Hidden Fortress told the story better on a much lower budget and without a lot of technical pizzazz that Star Wars had. I honestly don't know how Star Wars has stood the test of time. There are so many better movies that are not held in as high regard as the Star Wars movies are. The AFI's 2007 version of the top 100 films list considers the original Star Wars to be better than such films as High Noon, Godfather Part 2, 2001, Bridge On The River Kwai, Maltese Falcon, North By Northwest, 12 Angry Men, and others and I think that automatically disqualifies said list. It's bad enough that Star Wars makes the list but to make it over such films as previously mentioned is completely wrong. There is no other way to describe it. It is wrong and incorrect plain and simple.
I've never said my list was "legitimate criticism." I said it was movies I disliked and my reasons why. I'm not, nor do I pretend to be, any legitimate critic.
Back To The Future is drivel. Nothing about it is entertaining nor is much anything else that I can immediately think of that deals with 1950's American culture as subject matter. It's a major reason I despise such awful creations as Grease, West Side Story, and Happy Days.
 

Stan

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 18, 1999
Messages
5,177
TravisR said:
I wasn't the biggest fan of Jurassic Park either. I flat out hated The Lost World when I saw it back in the theater but I saw the series again a few months ago and liked both more than I remembered (the sequel has an excellent sequence with the characters stuck in a trailer being attacked by a dinosaur). That being said, The Lost World would still probably my pick as Spielberg's weakest effort. Oddly enough, I enjoyed Jurassic Park III the most.
Very similar opionions, although I did really enjoy Jurassic Park. Remember reading the book before the movie was made and immediately knew Crichton had a hit, just needed the right person to make the film.
Also hated The Lost World, except for the sequence you mentioned, it was a pathetic sequel. But with all things, they seem to change as we change, so will give it a second chance soon.
Same opinion with Jurassic Park III, by far my favorite of the series.
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
36,048
Location
The basement of the FBI building
DSmith1984 said:
I honestly don't know how Star Wars has stood the test of time. There are so many better movies that are not held in as high regard as the Star Wars movies are. The AFI's 2007 version of the top 100 films list considers the original Star Wars to be better than such films as High Noon, Godfather Part 2, 2001, Bridge On The River Kwai, Maltese Falcon, North By Northwest, 12 Angry Men, and others and I think that automatically disqualifies said list. It's bad enough that Star Wars makes the list but to make it over such films as previously mentioned is completely wrong. There is no other way to describe it. It is wrong and incorrect plain and simple.
The love for Star Wars isn't so much that it's one of the greatest movies ever made (though it's one of my all time favorites) as that it struck a chord with people when it was released. It's a fun movie and there was nothing ever like it in 1977. Based on your screen name, I'm guessing that you were born in 1984 so if you didn't see it until the early 1990's, it might not have the impact that it does for people who grew up during the era (nostalgia clearly plays a part in it too) or those who saw it when it was just mindblowingly different.
As for AFI lists, I like to look at them but I do my best to ignore their ranking and just consider it a list of 100 good movies.
 

DSmith1984

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 29, 2011
Messages
115
Real Name
Doug
TravisR said:
The love for Star Wars isn't so much that it's one of the greatest movies ever made (though it's one of my all time favorites) as that it struck a chord with people when it was released. It's a fun movie and there was nothing ever like it in 1977. Based on your screen name, I'm guessing that you were born in 1984 so if you didn't see it until the early 1990's, it might not have the impact that it does for people who grew up during the era (nostalgia clearly plays a part in it too) or those who saw it when it was just mindblowingly different.
As for AFI lists, I like to look at them but I do my best to ignore their ranking and just consider it a list of 100 good movies.
I didn't see Star Wars until the spring of 2005.
 

Stan

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 18, 1999
Messages
5,177
Was never particularly impressed by Star Wars, but my full geek period apparently hadn't hit me yet.
Worked at a privately owned tri-plex, but at that time there was kind of an unwritten rule where all the theatres in town, private or big-chain, let employees of other theatres in free.
Saw "The Empire Strikes Back" 21 times within a month. Loved it, still do and to this day is my favorite of the Star Wars franchise.
Star Wars, so so. The third one with the Ewoks (honestly don't even remember the name), completely forgettable.
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
10,329
I'd take this discussion more seriously if the OP didn't speak in extremes. Too many "absolutely dreadfuls" and "utter drivels" and the like...
 

DSmith1984

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 29, 2011
Messages
115
Real Name
Doug
Colin Jacobson said:
I'd take this discussion more seriously if the OP didn't speak in extremes.  Too many "absolutely dreadfuls" and "utter drivels" and the like... :(
First, if you don't take me seriously, fine. It's your right to take me seriously or not. But why even post in a thread started by someone you don't take seriously? I thought this website didn't have trolls and that is what it appears you're doing. Secondly, the word "dreadful" appears in this thread a total of 3 times. Two by me and once by you. The word "drivel" appears 2 times. Once by me and once by you. The words "absolutely dreadful" appear 2 times. Once by me and once by you. The words " utter drivel" only appear once you posted them. You may notice that this thread revolves around movies that I hate. The word hate is an extreme and I wouldn't put these films in this list if I didn't have very strong opinions about them.
Either offer an opinion on the topic at hand or find another thread to post in. I've no time or patience for trolling.
You may disagree with my listing and reasons and if so, I welcome a counter-argument. I'm pleased with the discussions on here so far even if I disagree with some of them. Otherwise, stay out of my threads unless you have something legitimate to contribute.
 

Stan

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 18, 1999
Messages
5,177
DSmith1984 said:
First, if you don't take me seriously, fine. It's your right to take me seriously or not. But why even post in a thread started by someone you don't take seriously? I thought this website didn't have trolls and that is what it appears you're doing. Secondly, the word "dreadful" appears in this thread a total of 3 times. Two by me and once by you. The word "drivel" appears 2 times. Once by me and once by you. The words "absolutely dreadful" appear 2 times. Once by me and once by you. The words " utter drivel" only appear once you posted them. You may notice that this thread revolves around movies that I hate. The word hate is an extreme and I wouldn't put these films in this list if I didn't have very strong opinions about them.
Either offer an opinion on the topic at hand or find another thread to post in. I've no time or patience for trolling.
You may disagree with my listing and reasons and if so, I welcome a counter-argument. I'm pleased with the discussions on here so far even if I disagree with some of them. Otherwise, stay out of my threads unless you have something legitimate to contribute.
I hardly think Colin was trolling. He was simply stating his opinion, and did it rather politely. Maybe not a direct opinion about the films you mention, but there's nothing wrong with that, it's all related and the thread is still on topic. Calling him a troll is a bit extreme.
 

WillG

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
6,935
I'm not convinced that Avatar should be this generation's Star Wars. While it may have been technically innovative at least in terms of film production; that in and of itself does not a film make. The film is not terrible but it engages in some pretty bad stereotypes that undermine the credibility of the film (at least for me.)
Yeah, I'm not feeling it for avatar either. Maybe you can make a comparison in the sense that was the first modern film that used 3-D in a ........."organic" way. But whereas Star Wars was the result of very talented people who did groundbreaking things on a very limited budget for that type of project, and at the time there really wasn't anything like it (with the possible exception of "2001" which admittedly Star Wars took a lot of its inspiration from). Avatar was to me cranking up technology that we all have seen before to 11 and it also came off to me as a demo of what you can do when you essentially have a blank check. You can certainly see where the money went, but that's about the highest praise I can give it. Other than that, the movie, at least to me was pretty much insulting (and I can't imagine how anyone who ever served in the military wasn't disgusted by the movie). And my god was it a bleeding heart, preachy movie as well (and the Lost World is right up there as well, more on that later). And you know what, I'm with the humans. If I recall correctly, the earth was dying, or something and they needed this mineral some how to save mankind. I think it was mentioned that diplomacy with the Alien race wasn't going too well. So what do you do? If your choice is the extinction of your race or having to kill off another species to save your own...............
Also hated The Lost World, except for the sequence you mentioned, it was a pathetic sequel.
And even trailer scene falls apart when you put even the slightest amount of thought into it. Even ignoring the absolutely idiotic character actions that got them into the situation in the first place are you trying to tell me that the windows in the trailer, that is designed to be used in a Safari/Game environment, mind you (I forgot if the tech guy actually knew for sure that the island was inhabited by Dinosaurs) are made of ordinary plate glass? Or that the three characters who are hanging on for their lives over the side of the cliff would make hacky, fast food jokes. Then the scene cruelly and quite graphically kills the tech guy, the one person who had nothing to do with causing the situation (and I tend to think that any director other than Spielberg would have had trouble with the MPAA in maintaining a PG-13 rating over that death scene.)
But in general, the Lost World is douche chillingly preachy (take the scene with the Ingen people rounding up the dinosaurs where we are treated to close ups of all the protagonists with pained/sad looks on their faces over a dreary musical cue.) The character actions (especially those of the Julianne Moore character) are moronic or make no sense. Also pretty much all the deaths on the island can be directly traced back to the actions of the Vince Vaughn character. But since he's an environmentalist ie. "Good Guy" the movie assigns him no culpability whatsoever. It's staggering to me how the same guy who made "Jaws" "CE3K" and "Raiders", movies that pretty much hit every nail square on the head could turn out what is pretty much the antithesis of all that in pretty much every way (not counting the admittedly first rate effects for the time). In contrast, Jurassic Park III is a masterpiece. Just 90 minutes of people trying to get off an island of Dinosaurs alive with none of the pretense or social responsibility messaging of the first two movies.
As for Zombies, I usually find them to be scary...sometimes (I enjoy Romero's Dawn of the Dead, but I never found it scary. It actually leans more toward comedy than horror. I think the 2004 remake was far more effective at being a frightening movie). Zombies sometimes don't seem like much of a threat, but in sufficient numbers...... And if they do get to you, you literally get ripped into pieces and/or eaten alive. The other scary thing about zombie movies is that they usually become an apocalyptic scenario.
 

rich_d

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2001
Messages
2,030
Location
Connecticut
Real Name
Rich
Hate is a strong word. Not too many films I hate and none on your list.
I would say that It's a Mad ... World gets WAY too much attention from this forum. I have no problem with goofy comedies at all nor the film per se but a restored version of the film seems like the holy grail for many. That's a bit much.
 

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
345,549
Messages
4,745,452
Members
141,477
Latest member
Gil Jones